Guest guest Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 Namaste Madathil-ji, Sastri-ji, Noting both the fear of the superimposition on superimposition which I heartily agree with and the intricacies of the variety of theories which Sastri-ji has delineated which are fascinating in their own right may I add the following. The variety of theories underlines what is obvious and is well understood in Advaita: your reasoning can be faulty and based on mistaken observation and incorrect science and still at the same time you could be enlightened. This must be the case as even the greatest enthusiast for advaita will admit. There is more to enlightenment than having correct views. Even if one does not admit that there is such a thing as the unity of the substratum nevertheless one can live it. A poet (Yeats) once remarked ‘man cannot know truth but he can embody it’. What are the indications for the truth of the unity of the substratum, if that is the way we express the truth of things to ourselves? Put succinctly: growth of wisdom in ourselves and awe in the presence of enlightened beings. Not many people will admit to growth in wisdom and some reject the idea as incoherent yet in truth and all humility if we don’t notice some positive development after many years of sadhana we may doubt our receptivity to grace. Obviously there is a grave danger of conceit in this, as the evidence of the swelling ranks of yogi brashta testifies. What I mean is that, from time to time, through grace, we surprise ourselves by an intuition which seems beyond our minds. Curiously enough there has not been much discussion about the efficacy of darshan. Is the obvious the most important item on the agenda? Best Wishes, Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 Namaste Madathil-Ji: svaruupa laxaNa of adhyasa is as follows: smrtiruupaH paratrapurvadrR^iShTaababhaasaH || Meaning - When one experiences other (previously known) visible (drR^iShya) smR^itriruupa avabhaasa. adhyaaropa - adhyaaropaapavaadaabhyaaM niShprapa~ncaM prapa~ncate || Meaning - Both adhyaaropa and apavaada are responsible for the prapa~na of niShprapa~na (brahma). As I recall this appears in the introductory sections of vedanta. Regards, Dr. Yadu advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > Namaste Michael-ji. > > A very astute observation, indeed, Michaelji. > > AdhyAsa analogies have become so obsessive with us that they are now > a virtual superimposition on actual adhyAsa itself! The result is a > mutual mix-up of adhyAsa and analogies. High time we recognized the > imperfections of each analogy vis-a-vis Knowledge (brahmajnAna), > which is Perfecton, and returned to the crucible of thinking (your > own expression from the past) to subjectively understand what adhyAsa > really is. > > Analogies are inert in themselves. They need something from our > inside to light up and reveal their real import. And that something > is nothing other than our self-evidence. > > By the way, can someone tell me where or by whom in our tradition was > this word 'adhyAsa' first used? Although we have discussed adhyAsa > ad infinitum, no one, at least to my knowledge, seems to have > mentioned anything about the entry of the word from Sanskrit lexicon > into vedAnta. > > Best regards. > > Madathil Nair > ________________ > > advaitin , " ombhurbhuva " <ombhurbhuva@> > wrote: > > > Do we understand what superimposition is? When we are offered the > > analogy of confusion to give us the sense of what superimposition > > is have we thereby understood superimposition? Or is it the case > > that we cannot comprehend superimposition? It is something that > > we cannot understand because understanding must be from a > > subjective perspective? ...... > > The very success of the analogy of confusion or the fact that it > > is readily intelligible, misleads us into thinking that we now > > have got what superimposition is. What we are doing then is > > turning the analogy into a parallel an error which Sankara > > corrects frequently. > .......... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 Namaste Dr. Yaduji, Shri Sastriji and Michael-ji. Thanks for your inputs. Dr. Yaduji, about adhyAropa, the definition given by you is from Acharya's gItA bhAShya. Shri Bhaskarji had quoted it during our adhyAropa apavAda debate. Our Subbuji had later beautifully explained to me the meaning of " niShprapancaM prapancate " in his post # 31646. Kindly read it. About adhyAsa, it is now clear that the error due to which the non- dual is rendered dual had been recognized by our apaurusheya upanishads long before it was christened adhyAsa and explained to us with the aid of analogies by Shankara and others. It looks like other non-dual philosophies had also apprehended this error. The only difference is that they didn't follow up their conclusion with an analogical methodology as did Shankara, his contemporaries and their followers. Best regards. Madathil Nair ____________________ advaitin , " ymoharir " <ymoharir wrote: > svaruupa laxaNa of adhyasa is as follows: > > smrtiruupaH paratrapurvadrR^iShTaababhaasaH || > > Meaning - When one experiences other (previously known) visible > (drR^iShya) smR^itriruupa avabhaasa. > > adhyaaropa - > > adhyaaropaapavaadaabhyaaM niShprapa~ncaM prapa~ncate || > > Meaning - Both adhyaaropa and apavaada are responsible for the > prapa~na of niShprapa~na (brahma). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.